Maybe they will try Clinton for that as soon as they try
Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld/Wolfowitz for lying us into two fake wars.
History will show that Bush et al failed America in those dark days.

I understand your feelings for the scores killed at Waco. Now if only
you could work up some sympathy for the *thousands* of American troops
and *tens of thousands* of civilians maimed and killed by W's folly.

On 4/24/2010 6:51 PM, Cicero Venatio wrote:

Bush fought for oil, Clinton executed the Davidians simply because they
absolutely refused to kneel before him.

Bush fought for oil??? You may be right, that -may- have been the real
reason, but as far as I know, that was NEVER publicly admitted to by the
Bush administration -- essentially the American public was lied into two
phony wars (that we are STILL paying the price for).

Anyway, even if Bush did do it "for oil", are you implying that Bush
gets a free pass to kill thousands of Americans and tens of thousands of
innocent civilians just because it was "for oil"? Does oil justify that?

...absolutely refused to kneel before him.

Well, I'm not sure about that. It may have had more to do with the
Davidians having illegal weapons. The fire appeared to be
accidental/unintentional. I don't think the ATF or Bill Clinton overtly
planned on having a fire. The government probably would have been
perfectly happy if the Davidians honored the ATF legal search warrant.

Finally, let's be pragmatic...

Yes, the 86 bogus Waco deaths were sad, even though accidental and not
specifically planned.

However, Bush DID overtly plan the two bogus wars.

86 accidental deaths versus tens of thousands of deaths that we the
people were lied into. So, you tell me, who is the bigger criminal,
Clinton or Bush?

If you think Clinton should be tried for those 86 deaths, well, fair
enough. But then I'm contending that Bush should be tried for the tens
of thousands of deaths he lied us into.